 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought November 20, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
In February 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his second “fatwa” against the United States, stating: “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the Al-Aqsa mosque and the holy mosque (Mecca) from their grip.” It’s not as if everyone from the President on down to a school child doesn’t know what bin Laden’s objectives are (or were). It’s not as if, every few days in Iraq, and every few weeks elsewhere in the world, from London to Bali, Madrid to Amman, al Qaeda—a relatively small handful of terrorists—does not demonstrate that its bloodlust has no bounds, killing Muslim and “unbeliever” alike in a relentless attack on the modern world. Therein lies the foreseeable end of al Qaeda and the global Islamofascist movement. The bombings in Jordan, aimed specifically at Arab Muslims, has put the lie to the claims of Osama bin Laden and his followers that the enemy is the United States, Israel, or Western culture. Now, finally, Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere can see that al Qaeda’s objective is the political takeover of nations in the region. Driven out of Afghanistan, fearful of democracy in Iraq, al Qaeda is increasingly on shaky ground. It hardly matters anymore whether Osama bin Laden is alive or dead. He is, like the face of Ernesto “Che” Guevara on a t-shirt, an image of a romanticized despotism. The problem for al Qaeda is that time and technology has passed them by. Theirs is an argument about who determines the rules of the modern world and the West has been winning that one now for a very long time. China knows it. India knows it. And, slowly, the process of globalization, the expansion of trade and prosperity worldwide, leaves no room for the cave dwellers of al Qaeda. I estimate that al Qaeda as a terrorist movement will run out of steam in about ten years. It is already beginning to lose support in its home base of the Middle East as Jordanians went into the streets to denounce it and Iraqis understand its threat to their future. What began as a feud between bin Laden and the Saudi royal family has evolved into global effort whose perpetrators grow fewer and whose funding is being shut off. The West, after a very slow start, is mobilizing to crush the movement. Writing in his book, “The West’s Last Chance”, Tony Blankley says “Most experts believe that bin Laden’s peculiar predilection for seeking ever more dramatic and symbolic acts of terrorism is the reason such conventional attacks have not yet occurred in the United States. Thus, so the theory goes, he won’t strike America again until he can be more destructive than he was on September 11, 2001. When he leaves the scene, or if some other Jihadist feels the call, we will be almost completely open to random acts of violence by bomb or gunfire.” Not a very good choice. However, it may not be quite that drastic. First of all, we have a pretty good law enforcement system, from the FBI to the local sheriff’s office. Worldwide, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are beginning to link together for common goals. Then there’s our vast intelligence gathering capability. At some point, it’s going to get better at infiltrating the Islamofascist movement, more rapidly translating its communications, and ultimately eliminating its major players. As Thomas P.M. Barnett notes in “Blueprint for Action”, a book you must read to understand major global trends, “We don’t really fight regimes anymore, and we can’t find armies willing to take on the might of our Leviathan force.” Instead, in the post-Vietnam era, we have sent our troops to arrest Panama’s Manuel Noriega; we went looking for Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia; we decapitated the gang headed by Slobadan Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia, and in Iraq, we dragged Saddam Hussein out of his rat-hole after killing his two equally vile sons-and-heirs. Are we describing nations here? We are describing individuals. We are describing nations run by thugs. After we rid those nations of these people, the big and essential job is to enable such nations to join the rest of the world as a reasonably democratic, economically viable part of the whole. That’s the job of civil affairs military specialists and others. It takes time. The primary error of those urging a quick withdrawal from Iraq is their failure to stay the course long enough to permit Iraq to reach a point where they do not need a coalition force to protect it and maintain its internal and external security. When that day arrives, they will tell us to leave. And we will. So where’s Osama? My best guess is that he is in Iran. My second guess is that he’s dead. Consider how the nations of the world are adapting to the threat al Qaeda represents. The riots in France have served as a wake-up call. Look to France to crack down. England is already in the process of doing so. European nations are going to be less tolerant and less welcoming to Muslim immigrants who willfully refuse to assimilate. In the Pacific Basin, Australia has said, in effect, “our way or the doorway” to local Muslims who demand sharia law. For Indonesia, terrorism is bad for tourism and business. That’s, as they say, the bottom-line worldwide. The question of whether bin Laden is alive or dead has become irrelevant. The world needs only to get on with the job of destroying al Qaeda, head, stem and root. |
|||||
I wondered how long it would take for the media to try to take control of the war in Iraq. It really didn’t take all that long for it to happen and one of the people I work with commented on how the media worked it. He said that they get in there and run with the herd and then try to redirect from the inside. I told him that there was a phrase that put a nice name and face on it. It is called the Hegelian Dialectic. But what we’re really looking at is the face of Karl Marx. He really didn’t have any use for that religion stuff, but he saw an opportunity to put the concept to use. What Marx actually did was do a dialectic of the Hegelian Dialectic. If you will read the first link provided below, you might begin to see other examples of this concept in the media and in their fair-haired boys, the left-wingers. As the war ramped up and became inevitable, the liberals realized that what they had been saying all along was actually going to be acted upon. When that occurred even the media had to sign on. They had no choice but to get in there with the rest of the herd. "To be heard, join the herd" if you will. It was the same thing it has always been with them. They joined in so they could merge with the common voice, all the while waiting to regroup and take over the wording of all arguments and discussion. The only way to control a thing is to control the dialogue and that is what they have finally done. Before I continue here I would like to remind you that the liberals originally offered up better reasons for attacking Iraq than Bush did. Of course the reason that Bush didn’t need to offer many reasons for it was because the liberals had already been doing so for so long. The media has for quite a while said that Bush’s statement that “you’re with us or against us.” was wrong. But they are doing the same thing, just as the liberals always do. They aren’t coming out and saying it, but it is evident that they feel that way and that is fine with me. I know they aren’t on our side in any of this. They’ve always been on their own side. The way this works in practice is this: “See this microphone? That’s right Mr./Ms. Politician, if you want to use this and get face time as the new election cycle approaches, you’ll do our bidding. You’ll say what we want you to say or you’ll be shuffled to the ‘too honest to print’ file and nobody will see you. Yes, you like Mr. Microphone and the face time it can give you. But you’re either with us or against us.” The primary tool that they are going to be using will be the "new and improved" wiggle room they’ve provided for their friends in power. That wiggle room has been provided through the use of the phrase and the accusation of "manipulated intelligence." Please note that "manipulated" starts with "M" just like "Marx." What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It is has as much to do with this as Joe Wilson had to do with real intelligence gathering. I find it rather ironic that we have a bunch of experiments in artificial intelligence talking about manipulated intelligence. Make no mistake, though. As we begin to get closer to the election cycle, the extreme left will become noisier and noisier, and by doing so they will make Hillary look more and more rational. Nobody will remember what she was really like before her new time in the media spotlight, and the media certainly won’t remind us. In the end she will look much more palatable to the public as she talks about how she would have handled Iraq differently. Of course, she will never come out and say specifically what she would have done. She doesn’t have to because one of the best ways to control people — as my son and I were discussing — is to make a general statement and allow the stupid people to fill in the blanks. They will look at the smile on her face and read it as verification they were right and she agrees with them. The reason my son and were discussing that method of controlling people was that he had just read "Helter Skelter." For those of you who don’t know, it’s about Charles Manson. I get so many letters from the pawns in a fool’s game (left-wing idiots, including those who think they’re conservatives) about Bush and mind control that I just had to mention that. I’ve added a link below that tells us of the real progress in the war on terror that we’re supposedly losing. Read it and weep, you left wing power-at-all-costs anti-American traitors. Reference Links: R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
I’ve been watching sports for a long time. But in all my years, I have never seen anything like what’s transpired in Philly the last few months—and especially the last few weeks—between the Eagles and all-but-former-Eagle Terrell Owens. Most people already know the facts about this situation, since it’s one of those rare few sports stories that transcend sports/SportsCenter and make it onto the evening news. But for those who’ve been preoccupied with other, more “important” stories (i.e., riots in France; bombings in Jordan; hockey), here’s a quick recap to get you up to speed: Spring 2004/B.T.O. (Before Terrell Owens): After successfully blowing three consecutive NFC title games, the Philadelphia Eagles acquire arguably the best wide receiver in football, Terrell “I Once Called Jeff Garcia Gay” Owens, from either the San Francisco 49ers or the Baltimore Ravens, depending on your perspective. In spite of T.O.’s apparent inability to get along with others, the Eagles hope his tough-talking, high-octane personality will bring some much-needed swagger to the clubhouse. Later that weekend, the phrase “You get what you paid for” drowns in the Schuylkill River. Fall 2004: The Eagles dominate the NFC and finish 13-3. Owens takes the city by storm, donating 14 touchdowns in 14 games before breaking his leg late in the year. Throughout the playoffs, he can be seen leading cheers on the Philly sidelines. And then, against all odds, he takes the field against the New England Patriots in early February as the Eagles make their first Super Bowl appearance in over 20 years. Though the Eagles lose the game, T.O. turns in a performance of Willis Reed-like proportions. His fate is quickly sealed as the most popular athlete in the history of sports-obsessed Philadelphia. The city treats him like its king. Spring 2005: T.O. hires football super agent/Great White Shark/Shane McMahon look-alike Drew Rosenhaus, the only person in human history who can sound arrogant even while explaining how he saved a drowning child. According to reports, Owens and Rosenhaus have asked the Eagles for a new contract, making the case that, in his first season, T.O. “outperformed” his 7-year, $50-million-or-so deal. Before anyone can even say, “Wait… is this rumor even true?,” diehard Eagles fans are already on the phone with local sports radio host Howard Eskin, who assures them the Eagles don’t really need T.O., because T.O., amongst other things, is an overpaid bum. Eskin then hangs up on anyone who disagrees with him. Summer 2005: T.O.’s once beautiful relationship with the City of Philadelphia fully deteriorates. Owens compares himself to Jesus and cries on the set of the Donny Deutsch show. In training camp, he says anyone who says “hi” is disrespecting him. And for no apparent reason whatsoever, he begins a venomous feud with QB Donovan McNabb. Fed-up with all the distractions, head coach Andy Reid sends T.O. home for a week. News vans show up outside his mansion as he takes off his shirt and does sit-ups on his lawn. (No, seriously. News vans show up as he does sit-ups on his lawn.) Fall 2005: The Eagles start the season an abysmal 4-3. McNabb is badly injured, and the Birds have no running game, but, luckily, they’re something like $12 trillion under the salary cap—and besides, everyone knows Owens’ big mouth and insatiable thirst for attention are the real problems here. When asked by ESPN whether the team would be better off without an injured quarterback, Owens says yeah, you know what? We probably would be. In turn, the Eagles decide they’d be better off without his tough-talking, high-octane personality. Owens is sent home and will never suit up in Philly again. Fans cheer getting rid of this “cancer” from the clubhouse. Eskin announces a funeral will be held for T.O. jerseys. The Eagles lose their next two games, and the phrase “better off” drowns in the Schuylkill River. Suffice it to say, Terrell Owens is an Eagle no more. Now, here’s what gets me about the Owens situation. His contract “dispute” came so out of nowhere that, frankly, I can’t blame anyone for thinking it was ridiculous. The guy did just sign a seven-year deal last year. And it was, indeed, for a whole lot of money. For what the Eagles were paying him, Owens was out of line for willfully disrupting the clubhouse. If that’s your anti-T.O. argument, I agree with you. I spent most of the summer wishing this guy would stop causing trouble and shut his stupid mouth. But from the very beginning, average sports fans—and many sports reporters—have been responding to Owens out of pure, unhinged schadenfreude. When faced with the news that Owens wanted a new contract, people shouted: “But he already makes enough money!” And that’s got to be one of the lamest arguments of all time. Think about this for a moment here. How can one make “enough” money, exactly? Or, for that matter, “too much”? Is that even possible? Anyone who says this has no idea how wealth is created. Nor do they know the first thing about how markets work. Yes, there’s such a thing as being greedy. But if you don’t like how much athletes are paid, stop going to the games. Otherwise, put on your hat and drink your beer. Another thing that bothers me about the T.O. situation is the overriding sentiment around Philly the last few weeks, which, based on the countless fans I’ve heard interviewed by local news stations, is that Owens picked the wrong city to pull this stunt in. “He shouldn’t’ve done this here,” people are saying. “Philadelphia is a blue-collar town.” Well, that may be true, but what the hell does it even mean? This is a blue-collar town, so no one’s allowed to ask for more money? That seems fair. True, on some level, T.O. was a “cancer” in the clubhouse. But that’s easy to say now, after seeing how he acted. Back when he first asked for a new contract, he was fresh off his Super Bowl performance, and fans had no reason—his tumultuous days in San Francisco notwithstanding—to assume the worst. For all anyone knew, T.O. wasn’t even asking for anything outrageous. He and Rosenhaus could’ve been looking for nothing more than a guarantee on the existing contract’s lucrative third year. Granted, this turned out not to be the case, but it’s interesting how no one waited to find out. As soon as fans heard T.O. was looking to renegotiate (or more specifically, as soon as they heard he signed with Rosenhaus), they quickly jumped on the “This is a blue-collar town"/"T.O. already makes enough money” bandwagon. Maybe it’s me, but I find this a little peculiar. For a town that’s so boastfully blue-collar, Philadelphians were awfully quick to side with management here. Finally, if there’s any merit to this blue-collar argument, then the anti-T.O. consensus around Philly is hypocritical, whether you side with Eagles management or not. Two weeks ago, workers for Philly’s mass transit system, SEPTA, brought the city to a crawl when they went on strike for better benefits. And as we speak, another strike is taking place in nearby Pennsbury School District, where teachers are demanding better benefits and pay. T.O.’s contract demands may have been ridiculous, and his behavior may have humiliated both himself as well as his teammates, but he never skipped a game, he never crippled an already trafficky city, and he never shut down schools and forced hundreds of working parents to make arrangements for their kids. Owens is a law-abiding, union-dues-paying football player. And up until his very last game with the Eagles, he always gave it his all on the field. If you want to have a discussion on athletes’ salaries, fine. We can have that discussion. But how many of those people who complained to Howard Eskin would’ve picketed outside the stadium if they didn’t like their contracts? Would they prefer it if that’s what T.O. had done? Look, we all know it was Terrell Owens’ antics—not his contract demands—that ultimately led the team to get rid of him. The Eagles were under no obligation to pay him more money. They weren’t required to put up with his whining, either. They gave him a shot, and it didn’t work out. So be it. That’s business. I’m not going to sit here and defend his behavior. He acted like a four-year-old, and it’s his own fault for squandering so much goodwill. I don’t expect blue-collar people in a blue-collar town to sympathize with the financial “woes” of an obvious multimillionaire (Lord knows I don’t). But most Americans want as much money out of their jobs as possible, and there’s no reason why athletes shouldn’t want the same. So vilify Terrell Owens for going about this like a crybaby idiot. Accuse him of marring the Eagles’ season, if that’s what you think he did. But don’t call him a monster just for requesting more money. He may be selfish, and he may be greedy, but we’re the ones wearing NFL jerseys and t-shirts. We created the monster here. Besides, the Eagles are something like $12 trillion under the salary cap. You mean to tell me they couldn’t just pay this guy to shut up and help them win? Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Congressman
Ron Paul (R-TX) Congress is poised to consider a budget bill this week in a vote both parties consider critical, but in reality the bill is nothing more than a political exercise by congressional leaders designed to convince voters that something is being done about runaway federal spending. Having spent the last five years out-pandering the Democrats by spending money to buy off various voting constituencies, congressional Republicans now find themselves forced to appeal to their unhappy conservative base by applying window dressing to the bloated 2006 federal budget Ignore the talk about Congress "slashing" vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn't slash spending if the members' lives depended on it. Remember, this is a Congress that has increased spending by 33% since President Bush took office in 2001. And we're not talking about national defense or anti-terrorism spending. We're talking about a one-third increase in garden variety domestic spending. This is also a Congress that passed the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. So there's not much credibility to be found on Capitol Hill when it comes to reducing the federal budget The proposed bill calls for such tiny reductions in spending that frankly it's shameful for Republicans to claim it represents a victory for fiscal conservatism. And it's equally preposterous for Democrats to claim it represents some great threat to precious entitlements. The dollar amounts contained in the bill are so insignificant that both parties are guilty of meaningless grandstanding. The budget reconciliation bill reduces spending by a mere $5.6 billion in a 2006 budget of nearly $2.5 trillion. This represents just a fraction of one percent, a laughable amount. Does anyone seriously believe the federal budget cannot be trimmed more than this? Consider that the federal budget was only about $1 trillion in 1990, a mere 15 years ago- and government was far too large and too intrusive then. After all the talk about deficit spending, this is the best a Republican congress and Republican president can come up with? What a farce Projections of big savings beyond 2006 because of this bill are pure fiction. Congress has no authority to pass budgets or appropriate money beyond the next fiscal year. Future Congresses will not pay one whit of attention to this bill, and its hopeful predictions will be forgotten. Furthermore, we need to get our budget cutting priorities in order. Why are we cutting domestic programs while we continue to spend billions on infrastructure in Iraq? In just the past two weeks Congress approved a $21 billion foreign aid bill and a $130 million scheme to provide water for developing nations. Why in the world aren't these boondoggles cut first? The spending culture in Washington creates an attitude that government can solve every problem both at home and abroad simply by funding another program. But we've reached a tipping point, with $8 trillion in debt and looming Social Security and Medicare crises. Government spending has become a national security issue, because unless Congress stops the bleeding the resulting economic downturn will cause us more harm than any terrorist group could ever hope to cause. And we're doing it to ourselves, from within. Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later. Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money. Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years. Taxpayers are tapped out. Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from? Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear. Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities. If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
Recently I read an oped, “Tough choices on teacher quality” in The Education Gadfly about Teach For America or TFA. According to Michael Petrilli, they have "been particularly effective in finding individuals with high expectations. According to a survey released earlier this month, seven of ten second-year TFA teachers disagreed with the statement, ''Students who don't have basic skills by junior high or middle school will never be able to catch up,'' and almost the same proportion believe that their own expectations have a significant impact on their students' achievement." Is it just me or are there a lot of teachers with high expectations and traditional certifications who have found it difficult to stay employed in a public school system where administrations are notorious for blaming the teacher when students can’t meet high classroom expectations; where teachers are expected to dumb down their curriculum; where teachers were expected to give out passing grades? In this type of atmosphere, teachers who can’t figure out how not to make waves without compromising their ideals often don’t have their contracts renewed. The problem for those with high expectations is administrators who don’t provide appropriate support to help the teacher, who throw up roadblocks to achievement because they won’t provide adequate assistance for students with behavioral problems; who don’t provide academic information about the specific skill levels of students in a time frame that would allow teachers to remediate particular deficiencies; and who don’t build enough time into the school day to catch up students’ whose skill levels are years behind grade level. In this very same piece, the author says that principals have often been too lazy to hire the best teaching candidates or sometimes engage in nepotism when hiring candidates who might not be the most qualified for the position. I agree with the nepotism but I don’t agree that they’re too lazy to find the most qualified candidates. I would argue that some principals go out of their way to find candidates who toe the “often politically correct” administrative line and don’t question student centered pedagogy that is often ineffective but expected to be implemented; who don’t ask for assistance when the classroom is out of control because of students who are “acting out;" and who create an environment where students don’t progress as quickly as they should but there is the appearance that everyone is engaged in the learning process. Principals at such schools kick the misbehaving students back to the classroom for the teacher to manage, regardless of their effect on engaged students. In schools such as this principals don’t have to give reasons why some teacher contracts are not renewed. “Good teachers” are not expected to question the system. It is hard for teachers with passion and concern for their students to navigate a hostile work environment; hostile to those with high expectations for their students and who want to do good work but don’t have support from an administration unconcerned with academic outcome and who instead elevate the learning process. No teacher can remediate students who are over one academic grade level behind in one school year unless there are more hours built into the day to target specific skills and unless there is an understanding that direct instruction is the most efficient way to catch up lower achieving students. In an age of cooperative learning and heterogeneous classroom settings, it is difficult for students of all levels to make one year of academic growth. While some students master the curriculum no matter how effective the teacher, many more fall further and further behind in this setting. Parents, administrators, teachers and students all must be committed to making sure that curriculum goals are being met. When families are not providing appropriate learning experiences in the early years, these students come to Kindergarten behind. When schools aren’t committed to the remediation of these students and they are allowed to fall further and further behind, AYP goals will not be met. It’s as simple as that. In Illinois, to be highly qualified a teacher must have middle school endorsement; which is all about feel good pedagogy. High expectations of teachers and students are not part of the middle school vocabulary in many districts. Principals are less concerned with a teacher’s subject knowledge than a teacher’s background in middle school philosophy; which is not scientifically proven to be effective. Much of what drives the choices of middle school administration is based on “best practice” derived from junk science. Any principal who can hire and not rehire without having to provide reasons has too much autonomy. The teacher has no recourse without tenure. NCLB is supposed to motivate and support principals to do whatever it takes to make sure that all students are making adequate yearly progress. Many schools have simply lowered the expectations for adequate yearly progress. Many have been given extensions for meeting NCLB goals and requirements. As of late, I have seriously begun to wonder if NCLB is just one more reform that schools are riding out until it blows over. While the special interest groups hunker down waiting for the storm to pass, good teachers leave the field and students get passed through the system only to meet a hard cold reality at the end of this rainbow: that they’re not qualified to get through college or meet the demands of a job that could support a family. And in this regard, the TFA is no Red Cross. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 6:04 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
|||||
